Don't take it personally. Most cities are, once you look past the surface and bling they put up for the tourists.

For that matter, I've decided I won't take stylistic advice for a map from people who live anywhere near it. They all too often have much too close a relationship with their city/country/province and an idealized view of it. All too often they'd like me to make my map in to some kind of bloody tourist advertisement.

I think the overall problem cosmetically isn't London's greenness or its floating nature, but the lack of tonal contrast with the background. Try a much lighter background with more contrast in the skyline - closer to white and black than to dark-yellow-green and darker-yellow-green. The map itself is fine; the background detracts from it.

Minister X wrote:I think the overall problem cosmetically isn't London's greenness or its floating nature, but the lack of tonal contrast with the background. Try a much lighter background with more contrast in the skyline - closer to white and black than to dark-yellow-green and darker-yellow-green. The map itself is fine; the background detracts from it.

Tonal contrast is not the only type of contrast you can use. That is simplistic thinking.

However, I am increasing the contrast I have, maybe this will make it more apparent...

Sorry natty, was just having a really shitty day, did not mean to take it out in your thread.

But my comment on why so dirty and grungy stands though. I mean that a fog like that has not been seen in London for a hundred years and the title is barely there. I can barely see your name, even with the glow. I can understand the style you are going for but it does seem a little over he top. Its as if you don't want people to see your name or even the title. The blue in the river is very bright compared to the rest so why not try to bring the red out in the flag and carry that over to the title.

Why not have the West in there as it is part of London which you have completely missed. Without it, you are geographically wrong. It would be easy to separate Hounslow, Ealing, Hammersmith, Kensington and Westminster. That gives you a 3 territ small continent in Hillingdon, Harrow and Brent. Put a motorway between Harrow and Barnet (M1) for an impassable. There are so many motorways, in London that you can use for impassables.

koontz1973 wrote:The blue in the river is very bright compared to the rest

It's called contrast. The playable area is the main part of the map, therefore it has a higher saturation. All the rest are background elements, and thus secondary. Even the flag and title.

koontz1973 wrote:Why not have the West in there as it is part of London which you have completely missed. Without it, you are geographically wrong. It would be easy to separate Hounslow, Ealing, Hammersmith, Kensington and Westminster. That gives you a 3 territ small continent in Hillingdon, Harrow and Brent. Put a motorway between Harrow and Barnet (M1) for an impassable. There are so many motorways, in London that you can use for impassables.

It's the smallest bonus area on the map, so people would go after it simply for that. Plus, it's not in a central spot (like North Central, which also has two more territories) and it makes it and West really attractive (still 5 borders, but +8)

North Central: +3 √

Northeast: +4

4 borders and easy access to the City, which wouldn't add a border, either.

West: +5 √

Southwest: +3 or +4

4 borders, but Lambeth does bring it down to 3. With no real great expansion opportunities (aside from Lambeth), I could see this going either way.

Southeast: +3

3 borders and easy access to the City, which wouldn't add a border, either.